“What a difference a day makes, twenty-four little hours, brought the sun and the flowers, where there used to be rain,” or snow in the more recent context of the Great White North. I remember my Dad playing that 1959 Grammy winner sung by Dinah Washington. Use simple math to multiply that difference-making day by a week and we have the alarm encountered by hundreds of thousands of Canadians crossing the border to return home from March Break, or a snowbird winter, when informed at the border they are to go home, go directly home, and stay home.

Over the last week Canadians have been witnesses to the rise of a new statistical interest, a fresh constitutional question, and the coining of a new word, “covidiot.”

Covidiot. The first time I heard the word two other songs came immediately to mind. The first, Green Day’s 2004 hit American Idiot declares, “Don’t wanna be an American idiot.” The second, Weird Al Yankovich’s 2006 parody hit Canadian Idiot, which similarly asserts, “Don’t wanna be a Canadian idiot.”

The word covidiot stems from the behaviour of Americans and Canadians on the beaches of Florida after a “stay home” and “keep physical distance when in public” plea was made by government and medical authorities. Similar behaviour was repeated this recent warm and sunny weekend in Vancouver, and in Toronto with the release of a new video game.

Across the country federal and provincial leaders have requested, or ordered under authority of legal enforcement, that gatherings be constrained to below a selected number – starting at 250 and working down to fifty, twenty, ten, then five, all with minimal spacing of two metres between participants.

Many Christian leaders have adapted to this request by moving Sunday services and weekday gatherings (whether church, bible school, college or university) online, by holding parking lot or drive-through communion, setting up social media communication formats, and inviting congregants to support food banks and check-in on neighbours’ needs.

Other Christian leaders have defiantly stated they will not forsake the assembling together (Hebrews 10:25) of their flocks in person, stating they must obey God, rather than men (Acts 5:29).

Some Christian leaders are simply uncertain what to do in uncertain times.

And, that’s why I’m writing this. Some Christian leaders asked me for advice. Most particularly, they want to know whether the government can compromise our rights to freedom of religion (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(a)) and freedom of peaceful assembly (section 2 (c)).

The short answer is, “yes, the government can compromise those rights.” You will find more detail in my book Under Siege: Religious Freedom and the Church in Canada at 150 (1867–2017), but the key to that “yes” is found in section 1 of the Charter which reads, “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

I suspect few Canadians or Canadian judges would disagree that the circumstances of Covid-19’s rapid spread demonstrably justify government taking legal action to constrain peaceful assembly for the purpose of public safety, provided the law is equally applied by the government making it, i.e. there are not exceptions for either non-religious groups or religious groups.

On the matter of freedom of religion, there is no constraint against finding alternative ways to engage and share religious beliefs and practices, which, as noted above, many churches have done.

The statistics supporting the government’s claim for reasonable limits on peaceful assembly are staggering, and staggeringly simple to understand.

According to the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centres for Disease Control, the average person who gets the flu will infect 1.3 other people. Take this out to ten generations (1 x 1.3 x 1.3 x 1.3 x 1.3 x 1.3 x 1.3 x 1.3 x 1.3 x 1.3)* and that person will spread the flu to 14 people. The incubation period for the flu is one to four days, so you might infect people before experiencing symptoms yourself. The hospitalization rate for flu is 2% of those infected. This is statistically the number taken into account in the design of hospital intensive care units – about twenty people in every one thousand, spaced out over a period of five to six months. The death rate is under 0.1%.

The W.H.O. and CDC have identified the statistical average infection rate for Covid-19 as 2 to 2.5 people. So the ten generation infection rate is (1 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2)* 1,024 to (1 x 2.5 x 2.5 x 2.5 x 2.5 x 2.5 x 2.5 x 2.5 x 2.5 x 2.5)* 9,537. That’s a significant range, and a dramatic difference from the flu. The incubation period for Covid-19 is one to fourteen days, so you might infect people for up to two weeks before experiencing symptoms yourself, hence the significant range in ten generation infection rates. The hospitalization rate for Covid-19 is 19% – that’s 195 to 1,812 all in a matter of weeks if everyone were to go about our lives as normal (as we pretty much do with the flu). This is an influx for which the Canadian medical system is unprepared – as were China’s and Italy’s. Hence the requests and orders to stay at home and observe spacial distancing. The mortality rate for Covid-19? 1% to 3.4%, dependent on medical intervention when required. You do the math.

There is a vaccine for the flu. None yet exists for Covid-19.

In addition to the broad numbers above, there are risks based on demographics. Let me break it down based on one household, my own. In a matter of weeks I will move from one demographic category to a higher risk demographic when I turn 60. Males are already experiencing a higher mortality rate per capita from Covid-19 than females. My wife is already in the higher age risk demographic, suffered kidney failure three years ago and has had more than one issue with lung weakness (e.g. pleurisy and other bronchial ailments) putting her in one of the highest risk categories for women. Our daughter, in her thirties, is in a higher risk category because she smokes. Our grandson has a compromised immune system.

Now, think of how many people you know who are over sixty. Seventy. Eighty. How many you know who smoke? How many may have compromised immune systems evidenced by asthma, allergies, past illnesses, multiple sclerosis, cancer… the list goes on.

Governments in Canada are not trying to stop the sharing of the Gospel. They’re trying to stop the sharing of Covid-19.

Jesus left us with three great commandments. Love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength (Matthew 22:37-40; Mark 12:29-31; Luke 10:27). Love one another, and by this the world will know we are his disciples (John 13:34-35; 15:12, 17). And, love our neighbours as we love ourselves (Matthew 22:37-40; Mark 12:29-31; Luke 10:27). I explore how disciples might effectively live out these three concepts of love in my book Church in Society: First-Century Citizenship Lessons for Twenty-First-Century Christians, but here are a few thoughts for today.

Based on all of the above, here are two questions to ask in regard to gathering in a time when gathering is restricted. Is the Gospel being constrained by not gathering? Is it loving toward other disciples or toward our neighbours to gather?

Is this a time for Acts 5:29 defiance, like Peter and those with him in Jerusalem who were commanded by religious leaders to stop sharing the good news about Jesus Christ, or a time to heed the advice of Jesus and the apostles Paul and Peter concerning government?

Jesus told his followers to render unto Caesar (the government of Jesus’ day) the things that belong to Caesar (say, the government of our day), but not to give government the things that belong to God (Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17).

The apostle Paul expressed, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.” (Romans 13:1-3, ESV)

And the apostle Peter stated, “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people… Honour everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the emperor.” (2 Peter 3:13-15, 17 ESV)

Rather than gather, this is a time to heed Paul’s advice to his protégé, Timothy:

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. (1 Timothy 2:1-2 ESV)

Pray for political and medical leaders who have accepted responsibility for all Canadians, including you and me. And, accept responsibility for yourself.

I don’t wanna be a Christian covidiot. I hope you don’t either.

*The math has been corrected. A friend pointed out that my first set of numbers did not include the 1 originating person with the flu or Covid-19.

The Harper government was in its second minority parliament, and had survived the effort of Liberal and NDP leaders to form a coalition government, but couldn’t outlive an opposition vote the day before it planned to table the federal budget in early 2011. The Prime Minister was faced with a Spring election, and, as is still the law in Canada, had to propose an election date to the Governor-General.

The timing of the government’s defeat brought Good Friday, Easter Sunday and Easter Monday into focus as possible advance polls and Election Day.

Lobbying, letters, editorials, mainstream media interviews and a young social media inundated the Prime Minister’s team with objections. The election was scheduled instead for the week after Easter. Stephen Harper formed a majority government.

Fast forward to 2018. Justin Trudeau is Prime Minister. Before Parliament breaks for the summer, Trudeau’s office and Canada’s Elections Commissioner are advised by Canada’s leading Jewish organizations, B’nai Brith and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), that the proposed election date for 2019 will conflict with the Jewish high holiday of Shemini Atzeret at the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot). Observant Jews will be unable to vote on Election Day or several of the advance polls if this timing proceeds. At around the same time four Jewish MPs, two Liberal and two Conservative, also write to the Prime Minister about the conflict.

Response? Nothing.

CIJA begins, almost immediately, to work with Elections Canada on alternative voting opportunities for the several ridings that will be affected if the Prime Minister does not move the date of the election. Remember, the Prime Minister has the final say on the date for Election Day.

B’nai Brith and the members of parliament write the Prime Minister again early in the new year, 2019.

Response? Nothing.

The Canada Elections Act authorizes the Elections Commissioner to recommend a date, but the final decision rests with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has a majority in Canada’s 42nd Parliament, and plenty of time, so could easily amend the Act to accommodate this identified infringement of rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. “The Party of the Charter,” as Justin Trudeau likes to refer to the political party he leads, takes no action.

B’nai Brith goes to court on behalf of the Jewish community in an effort to secure plan A, a changed date. One week will do. CIJA continues to work with Elections Canada on plan B. This is wise.

The federal court refuses to make the decision to move the date, instead sending the decision back to the Elections Commissioner and Prime Minister on the basis that the Elections Commissioner failed to consider implications of the decision to recommend October 21st on Charter rights.

The Charter is part of Canada’s Constitution. Its express purpose is to prohibit government from infringing the rights and freedoms of Canadians “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” The Supreme Court of Canada has found that such infringement requires that there be a pressing and substantial purpose for the violation and that there be minimal impairment of the right as well as the requirement being proportionate to attaining its intended effect.

The Prime Minister can call an election earlier than the scheduled date on 35 days’ notice. The Prime Minister has had a year to take action on an election that is still three months away, if Election Day proceeds as scheduled in the Act. It’s the Prime Minister’s decision. He has until Thursday, August 1 to make it under the Canada Elections Act. He says he won’t interfere with the recommendation of the Election Commissioner, but has not yet formally announced a final decision.

Most people will think about the inconvenience of moving the Election Day, but give little consideration to the 35 day notice requirement for an earlier date as the minimum preparation period for Elections Canada, a period of time that has been complied with in the past without problem. It certainly worked in 2011.

Many will think it a minor inconvenience that a small percentage of Canadians spread across a half dozen ridings* will need to find another way to vote, or lose the opportunity on this one occassion. But, that’s precisely the protection the Charter is intended to provide for all of us. Protection from the tyranny of convenience for the majority.

Section 2 (a) of the Charter guarantees the freedom of religion of these identifiable communities of Canadians. Section 3 of the Charter guarantees the equal voting rights of all Canadians.

From the political perspective, there are four to six seats in Canada’s 43rd parliament that may be dependent on the Jewish vote, and there are candidates whose religious beliefs will prevent them from campaigning for several days leading up to October 21st, as well as from efforts to get out the vote on Election Day, if it’s not moved.

It may seem a minor inconvenience to those who do not share the faith of this particular community of Canadians. Perhaps, you may be unconcerned about their capacity to vote (or maybe disinterested in voting yourself), but all Canadians will be witnesses to this thin-edge-of-the-wedge opening the door to a dangerous compromise of both religious freedom and voting rights if the Prime Minister continues to exercise the option of taking no action in support of the Charter he claims to defend.

*While there are six ridings (to date) with Jewish candidates considered potential electoral victors, it is estimated that Orthodox Jews living in 36 of Canada’s 338 ridings will be impacted if Election Day remains October 21st.

We get it. Michael Coren has shifted religious and political stripes. The former dark blue Conservative Catholic is now a dyed-in-the-wool, redder than red Liberal Anglican who has taken to writing opinion editorials that oppose those with whom he once shared religious and political beliefs.

A candidate’s religious beliefs are fair game, but accuracy is the standard in any depiction of them.

The preferred approach to comments on how a politician’s religion might influence his or her public policy aligns with the position taken by the Supreme Court of Canada on personal religious beliefs in its decision in Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem.

“[R]espect for and tolerance of the rights and practices of religious minorities is one of the hallmarks of an enlightened democracy.” In Canada, every religious community is a minority. The 2011 National Household Survey denotes Canada’s largest religious community is Catholicism, declared by 39 per cent of the population. Catholics, two of whom are Andrew Scheer and Justin Trudeau, hold varying positions on public policy issues.

In the same decision, the Court wrote:

[…] Freedom of religion consists of the freedom to undertake practices and harbour beliefs, having a nexus with religion, in which an individual demonstrates he or she sincerely believes or is sincerely undertaking in order to connect with the divine or as a function of his or her spiritual faith.

Which, being interpreted, means you get to decide what you believe. You get to decide how you practice those beliefs. Be genuine about your religion. Be sincere. Canadians have differences of opinion about religious beliefs and practices. Respecting those differences, as the Court said, is one of the hallmarks of an enlightened democracy.

Until recently, Scheer, Trudeau and Coren all identified as Roman Catholics. Today, they hold differing perspectives on Catholicism and politics. The Supreme Court of Canada – and I suspect, you, I and most other Canadians – would say that’s fine. But Coren and Trudeau’s team take umbrage with that understanding when it comes to Andrew Scheer.

Scheer affirms he is a lifelong Catholic, who holds to the traditional teachings of his religious community. Trudeau self-identifies as a Catholic who experienced doubts before re-embracing his faith, one who publicly disagrees with a selection of Catholic teachings. Coren set aside previously held religious beliefs to become Catholic, then after a few years, disagreed with the teachings of the Catholic church so left to join another.

In Canada, all three men are validly expressing our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion. None is disqualified from participation in public life as a result.

The anti-religious onslaught against Andrew Scheer is a form of ad hominem attack, a strategy designed to impugn Scheer’s motives and question his character by criticizing aspects of his religion rather than honourably addressing issues of policy or conduct.

Coren acknowledges Scheer is a “genuinely decent man,” then suggests a hidden agenda resulting from Scheer, in Coren’s words, “trying to disguise his personal and theological opposition,” i.e. his religious beliefs, in regards to abortion, LGBTQ+ equality and conversion therapy. Trying to disguise, but not succeeding according to Coren, who is unwilling to accept the sincerity of the genuinely decent man’s public statements on the issues.

It is difficult to confront the trope of a hidden agenda because of the very assertion that the agenda is hidden. But let’s consider Coren’s assertions.

In his determination to augment the allegation of a hidden agenda, Coren overreaches when he remarks that 15 per cent of Conservative Party members are similarly – and dangerously – religious. Coren’s math equally suggests that 85 per cent of those in the big blue tent are not comparably treacherous. The views of the 15 per cent are exaggerated by Coren because they are out of step with his current opinions, which Coren asserts to be the position of enlightened Church and society as well as the prime minister.

As reported in mainstream media and on social media, here are Scheer’s public statements on Coren’s litmus test issues:

A Scheer-led Conservative government will not re-visit the now-14-year-old legalization of same-sex marriage. Neither will a Scheer government annul other LGBTQ+ rights.

Asked for comment on the prime minister’s recent suggestion about legislating on conversion therapy, Scheer said the Conservative Party opposes forced conversion therapy. Trudeau having stated just months ago that a Liberal government would not legislate on the issue, Scheer said he would not comment on a Liberal Party legislative proposal until one exists.

For Coren, Scheer cannot be taken at face value simply because Scheer is “a devout and orthodox Roman Catholic.” The spectre of Andrew Scheer’s religious beliefs is introduced solely in an effort to demonize both man and religion.

Candid consideration of the influence Scheer’s religious beliefs have had on his political life reveals something different. Not a man with a hidden agenda, but, as Coren started his discourse before veering off course, a genuinely decent man.

Raised in Ottawa and functionally bilingual, Scheer moved to Regina, his wife Jill’s hometown. They have five children. Since 2004, Andrew Scheer has served as the member of Parliament for Regina–Qu’Apelle in a manner consistent with his religious beliefs.

MPs expressed their confidence in Scheer, electing him the youngest speaker of the House of Commons in Canadian history. Before that, Deputy Speaker. Andrew Scheer’s peers considered him an MP who would be fair with them in the refereeing responsibilities of the Speaker’s chair.

Coren also describes Scheer as “considered by many to be far too timid for the cut and thrust of party politics,” although he has done particularly well as a parliamentarian for 15 years, even before becoming leader of the Official Opposition. Scheer was not, however, even by opponents, described in terms that would hint he was untrustworthy, unreliable, or a liar with a hidden religious agenda until the Liberal Party fell behind in the polls to the Andrew Scheer led-Conservatives that had taken the lead.

Like your religion, you get to decide whether a genuinely decent man, who garnered support from Parliamentary peers of all parties to hold the Speaker’s chair, is the kind of person you want as Prime Minister.

By all means, reflect on the religious beliefs of Andrew Scheer, Justin Trudeau and others. Consider those beliefs as they themselves describe them and evaluate the evidence of how those beliefs have influenced their lives and their politics. Also take a look at their public statements, policy proposals and track records.

The governing board of the Law Society of Ontario (Benchers) is scheduled to meet in Convocation on June 27, 2019. As part of the meeting they will be considering the repeal of the compulsory Statement of Principles implemented in October 2017. The Statement of Principles reads: “I declare that I abide by a Statement of Principles that acknowledges my obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally, in my behaviour towards colleagues, employees, clients and the public.” Below is my letter to the Benchers.

June 18, 2019

The executive summary of this letter is, along with a substantial number of those who voted in the recent Bencher elections, I am opposed to the Statement of Principles (SOP). I have been since initial notice of the SOP set my human rights advocacy senses tingling at the danger inherent in ticking the yes box on the Annual Report.

The SOP is one in a string of actions that cause concern Benchers might have lost touch with being lawyers, as most are, and regulators of the legal profession on behalf of the people and government of the Province of Ontario. Instead, Convocation has in recent years seemed more interested in acting as judges and politicians on behalf of its constituency of 50,000+.

The fifteen members of the Challenges Faced By Racialized Licensees Working Group are commended for their work, along with the effort of the Equity Initiatives Department, and the resulting recommendations in Working Together: Strategies to Address Issues of Systemic Racism in the Legal Profession. The solution to human rights apprehensions for an identifiable community, however, is not the abrogation of the rights of others. It perplexes me that a group of lawyers concerning themselves with human rights of members of the legal profession could arrive at a solution such as the SOP, and more so that a government authorized regulatory body composed mainly of lawyers would be inclined to implement the SOP as a mandatory measure. The SOP is an appropriate recommendation for consideration by members of the profession, perhaps even for exploration in the practise setting. Recommendations are, after all, in the normal course of events, recommendations for broader consideration. But imposition of the SOP is a violation.

When each of us accepted “the honour and privilege, duty and responsibility of practising law” in Ontario, we took an oath to conduct ourselves honestly and with integrity, to “champion the rule of law and safeguard the rights and freedoms of all persons” in addition to observing the ethical standards of our profession. This is a strong commitment, to which the vast majority of lawyers in Ontario adhere, and for which there is a disciplinary process for those who do not.

The compulsory requirement that every member of the law society implement a personal statement of principles acknowledging an “obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally” or face undefined potential penalty for ticking the no box suggests authoritarian impulse rather than thoughtful professional governance responding to a sensitive situation. We already have an obligation to respect human rights laws, among other laws, and adhere to the Rules of Professional Conduct.

No packaging or redefinition of the word promote could suggest other than an active engagement in advancing concepts undefined and undefinable.

Equality as a concept is elusive and lacks precise definition, according to the Supreme Court of Canada and as acknowledged by the LSO in its guidance on developing an SOP. Diversity and Inclusion carry similar precision to equality in their understanding. Lawyers were left to assess whether to define the undefined in a manner one hoped would comply, if one made the effort at all to draft a SOP, to simply tick the yes box on the promise the SOP would not have to be produced, or to tick the no box with uncertainty as to what the future might hold as a result.

As a profession, we are committed to champion the rule of law and safeguard the rights and freedoms of all persons. It would be only isolated members of the legal profession who would not stand with clients against a mandatory requirement such as the SOP in another public policy or administrative setting. The violation of freedoms of conscience, thought, belief, opinion and expression would be self-evident. The failure to identify consequences for non-compliance would have set alarm bells ringing.

Lawyers are persons. We fit into the category of all persons on whose behalf we committed in taking our oath. We are neither above nor below the law, nor above or below other persons.

This is a situation in which it is best to apply the human rights concept of formal equality, acknowledging freedoms described in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and remove the SOP requirement.

Substantive equality is already required of us by our oath and under provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code, without the requirement to promote generally the undefined.

Perhaps, it is also time for Convocation to return to the raison d’être set out in the originating legislation for The Law Society of Upper Canada in 1797, “securing to the province and the profession a learned and honorable body, to assist their fellow subjects as occasion may require, and to support and maintain the constitution.”

If individual lawyers and law firms are held accountable for the commitments made when each of us was called to the Bar of Ontario, contributions such as Working Together: Strategies to Address Issues of Systemic Racism in the Legal Profession, Respect for Religious and Spiritual Beliefs: A Statement of Principles of the Law Society of Upper Canada, and other reports to the profession will help guide us, without the need for fear-inducing and freedoms violating requirements such as the compulsory SOP. Repeal the Statement of Principles requirement.

Time was, like many lawyers in Ontario, I was content with the leadership of our government authorized regulatory agency. Time was.

Now, I endorse the slate of lawyers running for election as benchers under the STOPSOP (Stop the Statement of Principles) banner. I also stand opposed to remaining benchers who voted against accreditation of a law school at a religious university. In six short words, the primary reason why is, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To add three more, rule of law.

It seems that in recent years the Law Society’s elected leadership concluded a little trim or nip and tuck on the rules was no longer sufficient, instead apparently going all-in with the mistaken belief the responsibility to regulate is a call to control. Sadly, in doing so, it looks as if a majority of benchers concluded the rule of law to be a threat to rule over the realm of legal practitioners.

In 2014, benchers voted 28-21 against adhering to the agreement entered into with the Federation of Law Societies of Canada authorizing the mechanism for approving new law schools. Why? Because the school in question was to be at a Christian university that held to a Biblical standard for members of its community. That vote was also a vote against fundamental constitutional principles of religious freedom as had been determined by the Supreme Court of Canada, ironically in regard to the same Christian university operating a faculty of education.

a professional arrogance that asserts lawyers hold a special place in Canadian society as ‘protectors of the public interest’ (as if Canada was not a democratic society with elected officials to fill that role…) … The result of this professional arrogance is, at times, lawyers seek ways for the law not to apply to them in the same way the law applies to others. Although it was hoped the lawyers-now-justices of Canada’s Supreme Court would rise above that particular vanity, most did not.

The concern with the Supreme Court’s inventiveness is perhaps best stated by Justices Brown and Côté, writing in dissent in the Trinity Western law school cases:

First, Charter “values” — unlike Charter rights, which are the product of constitutional settlement — are unsourced. They are, therefore, entirely the product of the idiosyncrasies of the judicial mind that pronounces them to be so. … What is troubling, however, is the imposition of judicially preferred “values” to limit constitutionally protected rights, including the right to hold other values.

Secondly, and relatedly, Charter “values”, as stated by the majority, are amorphous and, just as importantly, undefined.

At the same time the Trinity Western debacle was unfolding, the benchers were busy needlessly rebranding the historic Law Society of Upper Canada to the Law Society of Ontario, theoretically as part of a bid to be better understood by the public. I have imagined a majority of benchers somehow convinced the history of Canada taught in Ontario’s education system no longer included reference to the Constitutional Act of 1791 when the provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada were carved out of Quebec in an early step toward the Confederation that would take place in 1867. Equally, they must have convinced themselves that those looking for a lawyer, or to complain about one, would suffer confusion searching out the Law Society of Upper Canada that would not be present with the new name, Law Society of Ontario.

Tinkering with the Law Society’s image and function has bloated the annual budget to over one hundred and forty-two million dollars ($142,535,700.00 to be precise). This is a more than 30% increase in budget in last four years, and a 100% increase (yes, the budget has doubled) over the last thirteen years.

In October 2017, while continuing to battle in the courts against Trinity Western University’s requirement for a commitment to shared religious beliefs, busy rebranding the Law Society to a friendlier name, and authorizing budget expenditures like they were spending someone else’s money (they are), the benchers imposed a new requirement on the profession, a mandatory declaration of a Statement of Principles (SOP).

I declare that I abide by a Statement of Principles that acknowledges my obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally, in my behaviour towards colleagues, employees, clients and the public. [Whatever that means.]

Tick the box, they told us.

In February 2018, I wrote about Why I said “NO” to the Law Society. In the same way that the Law Society was seeking to impose an ideological tick box on Trinity Western University – agree with us and we’ll let you have a law school – the benchers were now imposing an ideological tick box on every member of the legal profession.

The Law Society made it mandatory to tick the YES box, offering a NO box without telling us what the repercussions would be for those of us who ticked it. Ostensibly, the position expressed is, “You will face consequences, but we will not tell you what they are.” This coercive type of policy that mandates agreement with an ideological opinion violates conscience, and has historically been evidenced by totalitarian regimes.

Given the number of TWU-opposed, budget-bloating and SOP-favouring benchers seeking re-election, I choose to support those who have expressed their commitment to the rule of law and principles of constitutional interpretation, known as the STOPSOP slate. Here’s the list:

If anyone has a Law Society of Upper Canada lapel pin you are willing to part with, I would much appreciate receiving one. My own effort to purchase a pin was left too late, and the stock was gone.

I’d like to wear the LSUC pin when speaking to law students and young lawyers. When they ask what it is, I will tell them, “Time was, there existed the oldest professional self-regulating body in North America. Called The Law Society of Upper Canada, it was recognized by statute in 1797, ‘for the purpose of securing to the province and the profession a learned and honorable body, to assist their fellow subjects as occasion may require, and to support and maintain the constitution.’”